F-15 Breakup Animation & video

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:SULij.35366$Ux2.369@attbi_s22...

Sure, it's a different time, you might say, and we've got satellites to
keep an eye on things, now -- but IMHO maintaining a modern Air Force is
cheap insurance, and one of the few things that our Federal Government is
actually *supposed* to be doing with our tax dollars.


Actually, the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to
maintain an Air Force.

Nor does it explicitly give the federal government the power to requlate
telephones, radio, television, or nuclear reactors or create and maintain
NASA as none of those things existed when the Constitution was written.

It is done through interpretation of the intent of the framers.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35,
but I fear otherwise.

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that
have pilots on board. There are huge disadvantages to carrying a person.
The airplane must have redundant systems for safety and reliability, and
often those redundant systems also have backup systems. The weight penalty
for the life support systems, including the cockpit, ejection seat, and
pressurization system are considerable. The potential acceleration of the
airplane must be greatly reduced due to the frailty of the human on board.

A warplane without a human on board could be much lighter, faster, more
maneuverable, and dramatically cheaper. To some extent, we already have
this: cruise missiles and UAVs.

Because they are so cheap, relatively speaking, the US could flood an enemy
with dozens or hundreds of them. With modern bomb technology, only a few of
them would have to get through to accomplish most targeting objectives.

I think the Air Force is moving in this direction, but far too slowly
because the leadership is made up mostly of pilots and there is a strong
unconscious desire to eliminate pilots. There is too much of the World War
I, scarf blowing in the wind, romantic notion of fighter pilots.

We now have an Air Force far more than adequate to defend against present
threats. I would like to see the billions of dollars spent on an F-22
roll-out and for an F-35 design to be spent on developing uncrewed warplanes
instead. I think this trend is inevitable, it's only a question of when.

Best,
Dennis Johnson

wrote in message
...

Nor does it explicitly give the federal government the power to requlate
telephones, radio, television, or nuclear reactors or create and maintain
NASA as none of those things existed when the Constitution was written.


Agreed.



It is done through interpretation of the intent of the framers.


Yes, and the intent of the framers can be interpreted so as to give the
federal government unlimited power.

"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and
F-35, but I fear otherwise.

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that
have pilots on board. There are huge disadvantages to carrying a person.
The airplane must have redundant systems for safety and reliability, and
often those redundant systems also have backup systems. The weight
penalty for the life support systems, including the cockpit, ejection
seat, and pressurization system are considerable. The potential
acceleration of the airplane must be greatly reduced due to the frailty of
the human on board.

A warplane without a human on board could be much lighter, faster, more
maneuverable, and dramatically cheaper. To some extent, we already have
this: cruise missiles and UAVs.

Because they are so cheap, relatively speaking, the US could flood an
enemy with dozens or hundreds of them. With modern bomb technology, only
a few of them would have to get through to accomplish most targeting
objectives.

I think the Air Force is moving in this direction, but far too slowly
because the leadership is made up mostly of pilots and there is a strong
unconscious desire to eliminate pilots. There is too much of the World
War I, scarf blowing in the wind, romantic notion of fighter pilots.

We now have an Air Force far more than adequate to defend against present
threats. I would like to see the billions of dollars spent on an F-22
roll-out and for an F-35 design to be spent on developing uncrewed
warplanes instead. I think this trend is inevitable, it's only a question
of when.

Best,
Dennis Johnson


They have already cancelled quite a few projects involving manned aircraft
in favor of UAV's with Boeing getting the nod after losing the F-35
contract. Actually the military ordered less F-35's then they originally
planned so they could buy more UAV's.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

Nor does it explicitly give the federal government the power to requlate
telephones, radio, television, or nuclear reactors or create and maintain
NASA as none of those things existed when the Constitution was written.


Agreed.


It is done through interpretation of the intent of the framers.


Yes, and the intent of the framers can be interpreted so as to give the
federal government unlimited power.

Sure, all you have to do is corrupt the majority of the Supreme Court.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

Sure, all you have to do is corrupt the majority of the Supreme Court.


You say that like it hasn't been done.

wrote in :

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

Nor does it explicitly give the federal government the power to
requlate telephones, radio, television, or nuclear reactors or
create and maintain NASA as none of those things existed when the
Constitution was written.


Agreed.


It is done through interpretation of the intent of the framers.


Yes, and the intent of the framers can be interpreted so as to give
the federal government unlimited power.

Sure, all you have to do is corrupt the majority of the Supreme Court.


And that surely could never be done.


Bertie

Only if you are a liar or a thief.

Yes, and the intent of the framers can be interpreted so as to give the
federal government unlimited power.

Oh, this is the "peace dividend" that the Democrats were overjoyed about.
Don't you remember?

I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and
F-35,
but I fear otherwise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2008/0108edit.html

Air Force Magazine
January 2008, Vol. 91, No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Robert S. Dudney, Editor in Chief

Catastrophic Failure
Washington's apathy toward USAF's geriatric fleet comes close to
outright negligence.


It was a chilling event. The aged F-15C, flying a peacetime mission,
broke up without warning, even though the aircraft had not been
violently maneuvering. The pilot was forced to eject at high speed.

These words do not refer to the recent F-15 crackup above Missouri
(see "Washington Watch: The F-15 Incident," p. 8). No, the mishap
spoken of here occurred in 2002 over the Gulf of Mexico. The doomed
F-15C was flying at 24,000 feet when part of its tail broke off. Maj.
James A. Duricy punched out at 900 mph and was killed. Investigators
said the tail had corroded over the years. The fighter had gotten old.

That, please note, was six years ago. The Nov. 2 mishap in Missouri
might be sobering—USAF cited a "catastrophic structural failure" and
grounded many F-15s—but it certainly was not new. USAF has been
warning about aging aircraft for many years.

Evidently, the warnings haven't registered. National leaders—be they
in the White House, Defense Department, or Congress—have failed to
address the issue in any truly definitive way. Indeed, Washington's
apathy toward USAF's geriatric fleet comes close to outright
negligence.

The Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne, reports the average
age of an Air Force aircraft in 1973 was eight years but today is 24
years and headed toward 26.5 years in 2012. The problem goes well
beyond the F-15 to include most of the major aircraft types—bombers,
tankers, and transports no less than fighters.

USAF's 505 KC-135 refueling tankers average more than 46 years of age.
Many C-130 transports are grounded due to poor reliability and concern
for their in-flight safety. C-5A cargo aircraft have low availability
because of frequent maintenance.

The roots of the problem are many and tangled, but no one doubts that
things began to go off the rails during the so-called "procurement
holiday" of the 1990s.

Problems first emerged in the 1989-93 presidency of George H. W. Bush.
In his four years as Pentagon chief, Dick Cheney—now Vice President
Cheney—curtailed USAF's F-15 program, postponed the F-22 fighter,
terminated the B-2 bomber at only 20 aircraft, and cut the C-17
airlifter.

A get-well aircraft modernization was supposed to begin in the late
1990s, but it was again delayed by a widespread post-Cold War desire
to reap a "peace dividend" by cutting defense spending. The Clinton
Administration bought a few F-15s and F-16s for attrition reserve, but
it also reduced the planned F-22 program from 648 to 339 aircraft and
further delayed it.

When President George W. Bush arrived in 2001, USAF was poised for a
long-deferred fleet recapitalization. Then, Bush's Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld, enamored of military transformation, restrained
aircraft modernization once more. After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks,
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began to soak up defense dollars.

Today, more than 800 aircraft—14 percent of the USAF fleet—are
grounded or operating under various flight restrictions. Older
fighters in the near future won't be up to fighting modern air
defenses or modern fighters.

The Air Force is "going out of business," said Wynne. He added, "At
some time in the future, [aircraft] will simply rust out, age out,
fall out of the sky." Indeed, it is already happening.

No one can claim there was not fair warning of the danger. As far back
as 1996, Gen. Ronald R. Fogleman, USAF Chief of Staff, noted "the term
'aging aircraft' takes on a new significance when [you are] keeping
fighters in the inventory 25 to 30 years."

In 1999, Gen. Richard E. Hawley, head of Air Combat Command, observed
that, "We are flying the oldest fleet of airplanes that the Air Force
has ever operated. ... Old airplanes break in new ways. ... The older
it gets, the less predictable it gets."

Fogleman's successor, Gen. Michael E. Ryan, in 2000 expressed deep
concern about fleet age and the high cost of finding the proper kinds
of spare parts in sufficient numbers to support readiness.

In 2005, near the end of his tour as Chief of Staff, Gen. John P.
Jumper warned, "The thing that ... worries me the most is the
[stunted] recapitalization of our force. ... We are now facing
problems with airplanes that we have never seen before."

What is to be done? Some Air Force officials suggest that, at this
late stage, the service cannot truly solve the problem but rather
engage in damage limitation. This would entail two basic moves, both
of which are simple but not easy. They a

Expand procurement. Top Air Force officials have declared that, to
properly fund the hardware accounts, service spending must rise by at
least $20 billion per year for at least the next six years—and
probably for longer than that. New aircraft would enter the inventory
at an accelerated pace.

Gen. T. Michael Moseley, USAF Chief of Staff, has made replacing the
aged KC-135 tanker his highest priority. USAF seeks 381 F-22s—not the
183 that has been allowed by the Pentagon—and 1,763 F-35s. These
fighters would replace many old F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, and A-10s.

Dump old airplanes. Keeping the old, flying clunkers is a
money-burner, given their high maintenance and upgrade costs. The Air
Force wants to mothball more of the old B-52 bombers, KC-135E tankers,
and C-130E lifters.

This will require the cooperation of Congress which, mostly for
parochial reasons, barred many such retirements from local bases.
Moseley said such restrictions force him to retain airplanes that can
neither fly nor fight but which nevertheless require regular and
expensive upkeep.

In both areas, the Air Force will have to do some high-stepping. There
is no assurance of success even then.

Without some dramatic change in Washington, USAF may have no choice
but to retrench, lower its expectations, and accept higher risk in
meeting its obligations. Then, the Air Force really would be going out
of business, at least in the sense to which we all have become
accustomed.